Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant's communication filed on 12/05/2025. In virtue of this communication, claims 1 – 5 have been canceled, and claims 6 – 9 have been newly added. Claims 6 – 9 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Argument
2. In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding objections to specification, they are hereby withdrawn. In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding 101 rejection, they are hereby withdrawn. In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding 112 rejection, they are hereby withdrawn; however, new 112 rejection to the newly submitted changes in claims added.
3. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 6 – 9 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection because the arguments do not sufficiently apply to references being applied in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a terminal” was defined in line 9, however “the terminal” appeared in line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
6. Claims 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention to the full scope of a claims.
Regarding claims 6 and 9, claims 6 and 9 recite limitations “a processor that assumes a base station performs the measurement related to the position of terminal using the second reference signal in addition to the first reference signal”. The specification does not show how a processor assumes. The best Examiner can find is the specification repeats the word “assumes” near particular condition being met (i.e., the UE or GNB assuming things based upon a particular condition existing, for example, transmitting a reference signal at a particular period), however, the specification does not show how the processor of the terminal assuming for the measurement at the base station related to the position of terminal using the second reference signal.
Because: (1) the claim language in claims 6 and 9 is broad not including the actions or functions to arrive at the claimed result and claims all ways to arrive at the result, (2) the claimed actions or functions are not known in the art, (3) The specification gives no direction or examples of how the intended result is achieved. The Examiner finds that the specification is not enabling commensurate in scope with claims 6 and 9.
For examination on the merits the claims would be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, as required by MPEP 2111.
Claim 7 is also rejected because it directly depends to claim 6.
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
8. Claims 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 9, claims 6 and 9 recite limitations “a processor that assumes a base station performs the measurement related to the position of terminal using the second reference signal in addition to the first reference signal”. It is unclear any active step is required for the processor of the terminal assuming for the measurement at the base station related to the position of terminal using the second reference signal, and unclear if an intend would require any step.
Claim 7 is also rejected because it directly depends to claim 6.
For examination on the merits the claim would be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, as required by MPEP 2111. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. Claims 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al.(hereinafter “Dai”) (Pub # US 2023/0209494 A1)).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Dai discloses a terminal (see UE 200 in FIG. 2 or 800 in FIG. 8) comprising:
a transmitter (see 215 in FIG. 2) that transmits a first reference signal used for a measurement related to a position of terminal (i.e., UL-PRS) and a second reference signal (i.e., SL-PRS) having a different from the measurement related to the position of the terminal (see [0079], [0089] for the UE transmits a SRS (sounding reference signal) for positioning, and see [0112] – [0113] for sidelink (thus obviously having a different with UL-PRS) positioning reference signals (SL-PRS) with the corresponding DMRS repurposed for positioning); and
a processor (see 210 in FIG. 2 or 810 in FIG. 8) that concludes a base station (i.e., TRP) performs the measurement related to the position of terminal using the second reference signal in addition to the first reference signal (see [0089], [0101] for PRS/SRS signal pair used to determine RTT and thus used to determine range between the UE and the TRP, see [0115] for the UE receives the configuration message from the TRP, which includes a configuration parameter as to whether the UE is to send PRS information using UL resources and/or using SL resources, thus the UE concludes the TRP wanted to perform the measurement related to the position of terminal using the UL-PRS and the SL-PRS),
wherein the transmitter omits a part of transmission of the first reference signal, that is periodically transmitted to the base station, when the processor concludes the base station performing the measurement related to the position of terminal using the second reference signal (see [0084], [0088] for the UE muting some PRS signals by reducing the power of the PRS signal, e.g., to zero and thus not transmitting the PRS signal, see [0110] for the base station is configured to configure the UE to transmit positioning SRS periodically, and see [0115] for the UE receives the configuration message from the TRP, which includes a configuration parameter as to whether the UE is to send PRS information using UL resources and/or using SL resources, thus the UE concludes the TRP wanted to perform the measurement related to the position of terminal using the UL-PRS and/or the SL-PRS).
Dai teaches that the UE receives the configuration message from the TRP, which includes a configuration parameter as to whether the UE is to send PRS information using UL resources and/or using SL resources, thus the UE concludes the TRP wanted to perform the measurement related to the position of terminal using the UL-PRS and/or the SL-PRS, thus obviously the UE assumes the base station performing the measurement related to the position of terminal using the second reference signal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, and have the UE omits a part of transmission of the first reference signal by muting some PRS signals, i.e., reducing the power of the PRS signal thereby helping reduce interference, as discussed by Dai (see Dai, [0084]).
Regarding claim 8, Dai discloses a base station (see TRP 300 in FIG. 3 of the BS 110a, 110b, 114 in FIG. 1) comprising:
a receiver (see receiver 344 in FIG. 3, [0068]) that receives a first reference signal used for a measurement related to a position of terminal and a second reference signal having a different from the measurement related to the position of the terminal (see [0079], [0089] for the UE transmits to the TRP a SRS (sounding reference signal, UL-PRS) for positioning, and see [0112] – [0113] for sidelink (thus obviously having a different with UL-PRS) positioning reference signals (SL-PRS) with the corresponding DMRS repurposed for positioning); and
a processor (see 310 in FIG. 3, [0067]) that performs the measurement related to the position of terminal using the second reference signal in addition to the first reference signal (see [0079], [0073], [0089] – [0090], [0101] for the UE measures positioning signals and provides measurements information to the TRP, and the TRP determines the Round Trip signal propagation Time (RTT) and range, see [0115] for the UE transmits positioning signals, UL-PRS and/or SL-PRS),
wherein the processor performs the measurement related to the position of terminal using the second reference signal without concludes reception of the first reference signal, that is periodically transmitted from a terminal (see [0110] for the base station is configured to configure the UE to transmit positioning SRS periodically), when the receiver receives the second reference signal (see [0084], [0088] for the UE muting some PRS signals by reducing the power of the PRS signal, e.g., to zero and thus not transmitting the PRS signal, see [0115] for the UE transmits positioning signals, UL-PRS and/or SL-PRS, thus the TRP or base station concludes that no UL-PRS receive when receive SL-PRS).
Dai teaches that the UE transmits positioning signals, UL-PRS and/or SL-PRS to the TRP or base station and the UE muting some UL-PRS signals by reducing the power of the PRS signal to zero, i.e., not transmitting the UL-PRS signal, thus the TRP or base station concludes that no UL-PRS receives when receives SL-PRS. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, and have the base station performs the measurement related to the position of terminal using the second reference signal without assumes reception of the first reference signal when receives the second reference signal because the UE muting some PRS signals by reducing the power of the PRS signal to zero, thereby helping reduce interference, as discussed by Dai (see Dai, [0084]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if overcome the 112 rejection above and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-THUY THI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 6PM (IFP).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANTHONY ADDY can be reached at (571)272-7795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MONG-THUY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645